Let us not be deceived we are today in the midst of a cold war.
The words of Bernard Baruch — “Let us not be deceived we are today in the midst of a cold war.” — stand as a trumpet-call, sounding in 1947 at the dawn of a new and shadowed age. Spoken at the height of uncertainty after the Second World War, these words gave name to a struggle unlike the world had seen before. It was not a war of swords clashing on the battlefield, nor of cannons shaking the earth, but a war of ideology, of influence, of whispers and shadows — a Cold War that set East against West, freedom against tyranny, and fear against hope.
To say “let us not be deceived” is to awaken the people from complacency. For in the years immediately after 1945, many longed to believe that peace had been secured at last, that the defeat of Hitler and the fall of fascism had ushered in a safer world. But Baruch saw the storm clouds gathering: the Soviet Union tightening its grip on Eastern Europe, the division of Germany, the clash of visions between democracy and communism. His warning was clear — the world was already at war, though the weapons were not yet open fire, but propaganda, espionage, and relentless competition.
This new cold war was fought not only in armies but in hearts and minds. It was waged in the classrooms of Moscow and Washington, in the secret chambers of spies, in the speeches at the United Nations, in the launching of rockets into space. The battlefield was everywhere, and yet nowhere — no open clash of millions, but the constant testing of wills. Baruch’s words revealed the truth that war can take many forms, and that the deadliest wars may not begin with a declaration, but with a slow tightening of chains.
History gives us vivid proof of this. When the Berlin Blockade began in 1948, Soviet forces sought to strangle the city into submission. But the United States and its allies answered not with tanks, but with the Berlin Airlift, sending food and fuel through the skies for nearly a year. No shots were fired between the great powers, yet the stakes were mortal, and the future of Europe hung in the balance. This was the cold war Baruch named: a conflict fought without open battle, but carrying the weight of world destiny.
The power of his statement also lies in its timelessness. For the essence of the cold war — struggle without fire, enmity without armies clashing openly — can be seen in many ages. Rivals in politics, in religion, in culture have often fought this way: not in one great battle, but in endless maneuvering, each trying to weaken the other without unleashing total destruction. Baruch, by naming it, gave the world a way to understand the new age they had entered.
The deeper meaning of his words is that vigilance is required even in times that seem peaceful. Just because guns are silent does not mean war is absent. Just because armies do not march does not mean conflict is not consuming the world. He teaches us that peace must not be confused with quiet hostility, and that truth must not be blinded by wishful thinking. To be deceived by appearances is to be unprepared for reality.
The lesson for us, then, is clear: in our own lives, as in nations, we must recognize that conflicts often lie beneath the surface. Do not be lulled into believing that calm always means harmony. Look deeper, seek truth, and prepare your soul with courage. For whether in personal struggles, in society, or among nations, there are wars fought in silence, wars of influence, wars of the heart. To acknowledge them is the first step to meeting them with wisdom.
Thus Baruch’s words endure: “Let us not be deceived we are today in the midst of a cold war.” Let them remind us that conflict may come not with a roar, but with a whisper, not with fire, but with frost. And let them summon us to live with eyes wide open, discerning the truth of our times, and standing ready with bravery and clarity to face the battles that are unseen.
DAHOANG DIEU ANH
When Bernard Baruch speaks of a cold war, it makes me question how we define conflict in the modern world. In today’s globalized society, is a cold war still about the same ideological divisions as before, or are there new factors at play—such as cyber threats, climate change, and global economic shifts? How does today’s 'cold war' look when compared to the one Baruch was referring to?
OOQuyen Quyen Oi Oi
Baruch’s assertion that we’re in a cold war today prompts me to think about how conflicts can look very different in a rapidly changing world. Could the modern cold war be about influence through technology and media, rather than military might? Are we already engaged in battles over resources, political power, and global narratives without realizing it?
229.Kien.10a2
When Baruch says we're in the midst of a cold war, it suggests that geopolitical tension continues in ways we might not immediately recognize. Are we simply ignoring the subtle forms of conflict—cyber warfare, economic sanctions, and ideological battles—that resemble the Cold War in a more modern context? How do we identify the signs of such a conflict in today’s world?
TUThanh Uyen
Baruch’s remark about being in the midst of a cold war makes me reflect on how conflict often evolves. Are we still witnessing the same kinds of ideological clashes today as we did during the Cold War, but in different forms, like trade wars or information warfare? How do modern power dynamics shape this ongoing, unseen struggle for global dominance?
MAMINH AN
Baruch’s words remind me that political and ideological conflicts don’t always manifest as overt wars but can simmer beneath the surface, affecting global relations. Is it possible that the world is still living in a 'cold war' even in a more interconnected, globalized age? What does that look like in practical terms? Is it about influence, resources, or control in a less visible manner?